adding race gas on a cobb tune did raise timing after it knocked in 4th on pump. do you have some special cobb tune that doesn't?

Yea, I have a stage 1 tune running on a fully bolted car, not a stock car. I already mentioned several times, the stage 1 is good for daily driving occasional wots here and there, but over aggressive when heatsoaked while staging and then going through the 1/4 mile. These guys where hitting IATs in the 180 range towards the end. I have yet to go over 100 degrees since I got cobb.

Adding race gas to a cobb tune WILL NOT raise timing beyond their set points and those setpoints are a few degrees LOWER than the stock timing curve. That is how you tune - as boost increases timing decreases. That is why TUNING is good. Mike would have you believe its not the correct way to do things - but every single expert tuner in the world would say otherwise (maybe they just don't understand the N54 because it is so adaptive lol). The point is - with a tune like the AP you (or Cobb since ATR isn't out yet) creates set points that are intended to be lower than the threshold so that you don't ever experience knock. For some cars that heat soak they may still be too high and just need to be lowered. Overall - this means that those timing values are the max - adding racegas won't change anything. That is why you have multiple maps you can run. With all of my cars I have pump gas maps, race gas maps, meth maps, and sometimes economaps (google lean burn in terms of road trips and such). Just because the dme is so adaptive doesn't mean you should use that to ride the reliability threshold (knock knock) - it means you should tune slightly below it so that it isn't needed - but is a GREAT backup for extremely harsh conditions if they ever occur.

Adding race gas to a cobb tune WILL NOT raise timing beyond their set points and those setpoints are a few degrees LOWER than the stock timing curve.

nobody said raise it above its max setpoint that is offset some from stock... just that it does adapt period.. Mike said if it raised timing with race gas prior, then some timing was lowered because of knock... clap said it wouldnt raise it (with his car) ... adding in the whole 'above max set point' is changing the context of what was being discussed with adaptation being used in the process.

the point of a tune being overly aggressive without offsetting timing was just shown to still be the case with Cobb (which does offset max set points), since clap himself said it was too aggressive without full bolt-ons

nobody said raise it above its max setpoint that is offset some from stock... just that it does adapt period.. Mike said if it raised timing with race gas prior, then some timing was lowered because of knock... clap said it wouldnt raise it (with his car) ... adding in the whole 'above max set point' is changing the context of what was being discussed with adaptation being used in the process.

the point of a tune being overly aggressive without offsetting timing was just shown to still be the case with Cobb (which does offset max set points), since clap himself said it was too aggressive without full bolt-ons

To aggressive when taken to the extreme, not too aggressive for daily driving and occasional fun. The reason race gas won't add timing is because my car (with all the bolt on and good conditions) is already hitting the preset timing tables. Adding racegas, wont raise timing, cause it is already maxed out.

I have seen rouhgly 9-10 degree of advance at 7000rpm, stock wants to see btwn 13-14. My timing curve under wot usually goes to 4-5 degrees and comes up to 9-10 by the reve limiter. The stock car never falls under 10 if you arnt knocking. So cobb essential lowered ignition anywhere from 3-6 degrees depending on the boost maping. Which sounds about perfect.

To aggressive when taken to the extreme, not too aggressive for daily driving and occasional fun. The reason race gas won't add timing is because my car (with all the bolt on and good conditions) is already hitting the preset timing tables. Adding racegas, wont raise timing, cause it is already maxed out.

I have seen rouhgly 9-10 degree of advance at 7000rpm, stock wants to see btwn 13-14. My timing curve under wot usually goes to 4-5 degrees and comes up to 9-10 by the reve limiter. The stock car never falls under 10 if you arnt knocking. So cobb essential lowered ignition anywhere from 3-6 degrees depending on the boost maping. Which sounds about perfect.

OTS map is around 14psi max, my custom Stage 1 hits 15, I am full bolt on, and currently NOT using meth, as it is simply a waste at this point. Just straight 93 octane lukoil pump gas. If people need proof I will simply add IAT logs to my graphs. With meth and a fmic, IATS simply don't go up at all, last log I did, IAts started at around 65 in 2nd, and around 120 in 4th, they stopped at 92ish

OTS map is around 14psi max, my custom Stage 1 hits 15, I am full bolt on, and currently NOT using meth, as it is simply a waste at this point. Just straight 93 octane lukoil pump gas.

That is about the max boost I would want to hit, as I think more is going to hurt the turbo's lifespan. But, I would think a good 50/50 meth setup would help it run even smoother with just the cooling/cleaning benefits.

Basically what I am saying is that proper tuning (lowering max timing) is the way to go. The Cobb OTS maps are fine - go to the track and it would help to lower the timing a bit more (which is the whole point of this discussion and just further supports the fact that Mike is babbling nonsense) because conditions become "more harsh" while rowing through the gears from a dead stop to 11x mph.

Case and point - if you set timing properly the car will never knock. Being able to tune the car like every other platform (because tuning is tuning no matter the platform - just different values but the same principles) will allow us to achieve this. If I had ATR I can set my car to almost NEVER knock. I could make a second map with much higher timing values and a bit more lean so that I could run racegas. Mike's arguement is to let the car do all the adapting on one map and don't touch timing as the stock ecu will knock its way into a lower timing set - until it tries to ramp up again and knock its way back down. Irregardless - one method doesn't involve knocking - one does - in the tuning world that decision wouldn't even be questioned by a 2 year old.

You are spot on with the meth comment. I often recommend people I help/tune/build run 50/50 mix on a moderate nozzle and not always tune for it. This car will adapt to the fueling as you are supplying some fuel (meth doesnt supplement all that much but it does have enough of a presence) but overall it will simply reduce charge temps and lower egt allowing for a more efficient combustion process.

I appreciate the note and I would also ask that before invoking product names in your posts that you spend more time learning the platform. Clearly certain aspects of how the N54 works are being mischaracterized to fit in to your model of how you've tuned other platforms or how you think it should work. For example, you and clap135 continually ignore the adaptive timing system. Instead you say "well, if you set the advance maximums so low that it can't adapt up then you'll have tuning like you would in any other platform", and that is of course true. But no one does that and for very good reason. The adaptive advance system is one of the best things about this
platform. Timing is managed on a cylinder by cylinder basis and is almost perfectly timed in every situation, condition, and octane. It's never lazy or undertimed and never knocks. Try doing that with manual timing tables.

Also this has nothing to do with products. The fact is there are more tunes out there using the JB3s method of timing control than there are using CPS. It's about understanding how the DME and tunes work. I think clap135 put it really eloquently when he said if you add race gas and timing goes up its knocking. That seems a reasonable position and as I've said that will happen with any tune on this market. If you don't believe it then let's put that to the test once again. You'll be surprised.

Mike

Mike what the HELL are you smoking? I know they got the good shit up there in Canada but please put it down for a minute.

yes the car knocks
yes the car knocks a lot more on JB tunes
yes the car is lazy when it knocks because the timing is being pulled out to save the motor from more knock......aka DAMAGE (shut it InCityPhoto on this one)
NO there are not more different tunes out there that ignore timing control than use it
NO riding the knock sensors at raised boost levels and expecting the motor to run better on the stock timing is not ideal

I know you get your responses or even worse yet your knowledge base from Terry but damn man........step back from the keyboard for a second and think about this.

Or send me some of what your smoking and i'll join you on planet Merry for a bit.

Basically what I am saying is that proper tuning (lowering max timing) is the way to go. The Cobb OTS maps are fine - go to the track and it would help to lower the timing a bit more (which is the whole point of this discussion and just further supports the fact that Mike is babbling nonsense) because conditions become "more harsh" while rowing through the gears from a dead stop to 11x mph.

Case and point - if you set timing properly the car will never knock. Being able to tune the car like every other platform (because tuning is tuning no matter the platform - just different values but the same principles) will allow us to achieve this. If I had ATR I can set my car to almost NEVER knock. I could make a second map with much higher timing values and a bit more lean so that I could run racegas. Mike's arguement is to let the car do all the adapting on one map and don't touch timing as the stock ecu will knock its way into a lower timing set - until it tries to ramp up again and knock its way back down. Irregardless - one method doesn't involve knocking - one does - in the tuning world that decision wouldn't even be questioned by a 2 year old.

You are spot on with the meth comment. I often recommend people I help/tune/build run 50/50 mix on a moderate nozzle and not always tune for it. This car will adapt to the fueling as you are supplying some fuel (meth doesnt supplement all that much but it does have enough of a presence) but overall it will simply reduce charge temps and lower egt allowing for a more efficient combustion process.

you are spot on with this comment.

unless you want to run on the ragged edge w your motor....run a standard map w the meth and your car will be happy as can be. Lower IAT's.....higher octane.....smoother timing. Happy and fast car.

if your in Clap's position where your IATs are low anyway and your timing is maxed out for your map....then Id have to say meth is a waste of $$ of a DD. On the track its another story. Any intercooler on this car will heatsoak eventually on the track and thats where meth will add an extra level of health and consistant power to your car.

orrrrrrrrrrrrr you can just let it knock knock knock away

exactly what i'll be doing with my car very soon (adding meth to a standard map...not the last paragraph).

Need to change the subject quickly once Mike get's going. Or just let him have the last word... moving on

Couple people here believe the flash is the ultimate solution with the fully customizable maps. I do think this is true for fuel and timing, but NOT for boost control. If we are stuck with the bmw load logic, then maybe some hybrid flash / piggy would be the best solution. I take it other platforms control power by boost which makes more sense in the tuning aspect cause you are targeting a volume of air which more appropriately fits the engine plumping. We cannot do that here... unless we replace the ECU (i guess).

I appreciate the note and I would also ask that before invoking product names in your posts that you spend more time learning the platform. Clearly certain aspects of how the N54 works are being mischaracterized to fit in to your model of how you've tuned other platforms or how you think it should work. For example, you and clap135 continually ignore the adaptive timing system. Instead you say "well, if you set the advance maximums so low that it can't adapt up then you'll have tuning like you would in any other platform", and that is of course true. But no one does that and for very good reason. The adaptive advance system is one of the best things about this
platform. Timing is managed on a cylinder by cylinder basis and is almost perfectly timed in every situation, condition, and octane. It's never lazy or undertimed and never knocks. Try doing that with manual timing tables.(<---These cars have "manual tables"... there's a reason for that)

Also this has nothing to do with products. The fact is there are more tunes out there using the JB3s method of timing control than there are using CPS. It's about understanding how the DME and tunes work. I think clap135 put it really eloquently when he said if you add race gas and timing goes up its knocking. That seems a reasonable position and as I've said that will happen with any tune on this market. If you don't believe it then let's put that to the test once again. You'll be surprised.

Mike

Mike,

I think you missed the point buddy A large majority of modern performance cars have adaptive timing systems. Let's review here:

-Most modern cars have load vs RPM timing tables.
-The N54 has a load vs RPM timing table (I added it to the first post if you care to take another look ).

-Most modern cars have knock induced timing correction (Subaru's refer to this as IAM).
-The N54 also corrects timing based on knock.

-Most modern cars have compensation tables for a variety of environmental conditions (IAT, Baro, ect).
-The N54 has compensation tables for a variety of environmental conditions.

^^^I understand that you're having some difficulty understanding this, but the N54's timing system is not that different from every other modern performance car out there. It simply has a slightly faster DME and more sensitive knock sensors (thank goodness!!). The principles are the same. I've seen plenty of cars that knock from the factory (especially at my elevation- 5200 ft on 91 octane piss water), this is never optimum, and any tuner worth their salt will work to ensure no knock is present at any point if at all possible.

We've all seen enough logs to know that yes, in fact these cars do knock, many from the factory, and many more when tuned. This is never optimum, under any condition, regardless of how fast the DME is at pulling timing to avoid major catastrophic failure. I would agree that many OTS maps/tunes knock (this much is true in many communities, N54/N55's are not alone in this regard), which is why I'm not advocating OTS maps, and am a firm believer in custom tuning (always have been).

Those massive drops in timing seen in numerous logs (caused by knock, regardless of the severity), those translate to dips seen in torque curves, and in the real world, not only do they have the potential to increase normal wear, they also lead to reduced consistency.

I would also respectfully disagree that "no one does this", as many respected tuners attempt to adjust timing in regards to load (i.e. Shiv). While an OTS map often does not hit this target, it is attempted nonetheless. You will find as user adjustability increases, and these cars become tuned by a larger number of professional tuners, they will follow the same strategy. As a matter of fact, it might not be a bad idea to consult the guys at Cobb for their thoughts on the matter (I already have ). If a tune is happy, you should be seeing maximum/base timing values (most professional tuners would agree with me on this).

Have you ever taken a political science or critical thinking course? If so, you would know that the argument in your last paragraph is what can be referred to as an argumentum ad populum, which is appealing to popularity as opposed to logic. It's a nice move in order to appeal to people that have poor critical thinking skills, and are not used to wading through rhetoric. This holds a considerable amount of sway over the uneducated population, that is not familiar with the more basic (as well as advanced) theories of tuning. However on individuals that have a bit more experience in this realm than yourself, this type of fallacy holds little sway.

Last I heard (and correct me if I heard wrong), Terry was working on a "Proboard" for "more advanced users", and this unit will supposedly have the ability to alter timing. Is this true, sir? Or have I been misinformed? If so, based on your beliefs about playing with timing tables being a waste (not a view shared by most reputable tuners), why would your benefactor be working on a system that addresses these shortcomings? You don't have to answer that if you don't want to, you can allow it to be rhetorical, but it's just food for thought friend

I respect that you have a difficult, demanding job, and from what I understand, you are phenomenal in the realm of customer service, so please don't take any of this personal, as it is not meant to be. This is merely a technical discussion, one that I believe benefits all the members of this community.

I think you missed the point buddy A large majority of modern performance cars have adaptive timing systems. Let's review here:

-Most modern cars have load vs RPM timing tables.
-The N54 has a load vs RPM timing table (I added it to the first post if you care to take another look ).

-Most modern cars have knock induced timing correction (Subaru's refer to this as IAM).
-The N54 also corrects timing based on knock.

-Most modern cars have compensation tables for a variety of environmental conditions (IAT, Baro, ect).
-The N54 has compensation tables for a variety of environmental conditions.

^^^I understand that you're having some difficulty understanding this, but the N54's timing system is not that different from every other modern performance car out there. It simply has a slightly faster DME and more sensitive knock sensors (thank goodness!!). The principles are the same. I've seen plenty of cars that knock from the factory (especially at my elevation- 5200 ft on 91 octane piss water), this is never optimum, and any tuner worth their salt will work to ensure no knock is present at any point if at all possible.

We've all seen enough logs to know that yes, in fact these cars do knock, many from the factory, and many more when tuned. This is never optimum, under any condition, regardless of how fast the DME is at pulling timing to avoid major catastrophic failure. I would agree that many OTS maps/tunes knock (this much is true in many communities, N54/N55's are not alone in this regard), which is why I'm not advocating OTS maps, and am a firm believer in custom tuning (always have been).

Those massive drops in timing seen in numerous logs (caused by knock, regardless of the severity), those translate to dips seen in torque curves, and in the real world, not only do they have the potential to increase normal wear, they also lead to reduced consistency.

I would also respectfully disagree that "no one does this", as many respected tuners attempt to adjust timing in regards to load (i.e. Shiv). While an OTS map often does not hit this target, it is attempted nonetheless. You will find as user adjustability increases, and these cars become tuned by a larger number of professional tuners, they will follow the same strategy. As a matter of fact, it might not be a bad idea to consult the guys at Cobb for their thoughts on the matter (I already have ). If a tune is happy, you should be seeing maximum/base timing values (most professional tuners would agree with me on this).

Have you ever taken a political science or critical thinking course? If so, you would know that the argument in your last paragraph is what can be referred to as an argumentum ad populum, which is appealing to popularity as opposed to logic. It's a nice move in order to appeal to people that have poor critical thinking skills, and are not used to wading through rhetoric. This holds a considerable amount of sway over the uneducated population, that is not familiar with the more basic (as well as advanced) theories of tuning. However on individuals that have a bit more experience in this realm than yourself, this type of fallacy holds little sway.

Last I heard (and correct me if I heard wrong), Terry was working on a "Proboard" for "more advanced users", and this unit will supposedly have the ability to alter timing. Is this true, sir? Or have I been misinformed? If so, based on your beliefs about playing with timing tables being a waste (not a view shared by most reputable tuners), why would your benefactor be working on a system that addresses these shortcomings? You don't have to answer that if you don't want to, you can allow it to be rhetorical, but it's just food for thought friend

I respect that you have a difficult, demanding job, and from what I understand, you are phenomenal in the realm of customer service, so please don't take any of this personal, as it is not meant to be. This is merely a technical discussion, one that I believe benefits all the members of this community.

Cheers,

-Brandon

Normally I don't quote long posts but this deserves to go up a second time lol

You literally take everything I say, chris says, etc. and say it in an organized manner. I am just so frustrated by either his deceptive and horrid business practices or his true lack of intelligence to put the nonsense that he says in public view.

Seriously - who says its better to just let the dme bounce of knock over and over instead of just spending a little time and dialing in a timing curve that is appropriate for the specific vehicle.

I think you missed the point buddy A large majority of modern performance cars have adaptive timing systems. Let's review here:

-Most modern cars have load vs RPM timing tables.
-The N54 has a load vs RPM timing table (I added it to the first post if you care to take another look ).

-Most modern cars have knock induced timing correction (Subaru's refer to this as IAM).
-The N54 also corrects timing based on knock.

-Most modern cars have compensation tables for a variety of environmental conditions (IAT, Baro, ect).
-The N54 has compensation tables for a variety of environmental conditions.

^^^I understand that you're having some difficulty understanding this, but the N54's timing system is not that different from every other modern performance car out there. It simply has a slightly faster DME and more sensitive knock sensors (thank goodness!!). The principles are the same. I've seen plenty of cars that knock from the factory (especially at my elevation- 5200 ft on 91 octane piss water), this is never optimum, and any tuner worth their salt will work to ensure no knock is present at any point if at all possible.

We've all seen enough logs to know that yes, in fact these cars do knock, many from the factory, and many more when tuned. This is never optimum, under any condition, regardless of how fast the DME is at pulling timing to avoid major catastrophic failure. I would agree that many OTS maps/tunes knock (this much is true in many communities, N54/N55's are not alone in this regard), which is why I'm not advocating OTS maps, and am a firm believer in custom tuning (always have been).

Those massive drops in timing seen in numerous logs (caused by knock, regardless of the severity), those translate to dips seen in torque curves, and in the real world, not only do they have the potential to increase normal wear, they also lead to reduced consistency.

I would also respectfully disagree that "no one does this", as many respected tuners attempt to adjust timing in regards to load (i.e. Shiv). While an OTS map often does not hit this target, it is attempted nonetheless. You will find as user adjustability increases, and these cars become tuned by a larger number of professional tuners, they will follow the same strategy. As a matter of fact, it might not be a bad idea to consult the guys at Cobb for their thoughts on the matter (I already have ). If a tune is happy, you should be seeing maximum/base timing values (most professional tuners would agree with me on this).

Have you ever taken a political science or critical thinking course? If so, you would know that the argument in your last paragraph is what can be referred to as an argumentum ad populum, which is appealing to popularity as opposed to logic. It's a nice move in order to appeal to people that have poor critical thinking skills, and are not used to wading through rhetoric. This holds a considerable amount of sway over the uneducated population, that is not familiar with the more basic (as well as advanced) theories of tuning. However on individuals that have a bit more experience in this realm than yourself, this type of fallacy holds little sway.
Last I heard (and correct me if I heard wrong), Terry was working on a "Proboard" for "more advanced users", and this unit will supposedly have the ability to alter timing. Is this true, sir? Or have I been misinformed? If so, based on your beliefs about playing with timing tables being a waste (not a view shared by most reputable tuners), why would your benefactor be working on a system that addresses these shortcomings? You don't have to answer that if you don't want to, you can allow it to be rhetorical, but it's just food for thought friend

I respect that you have a difficult, demanding job, and from what I understand, you are phenomenal in the realm of customer service, so please don't take any of this personal, as it is not meant to be. This is merely a technical discussion, one that I believe benefits all the members of this community.

Cheers,

-Brandon

you are much nicer to Mike/Terry than most who see their attempts to keep a loyal following w half truths and misleading claims.

Normally I don't quote long posts but this deserves to go up a second time lol

You literally take everything I say, chris says, etc. and say it in an organized manner. I am just so frustrated by either his deceptive and horrid business practices or his true lack of intelligence to put the nonsense that he says in public view.

Seriously - who says its better to just let the dme bounce of knock over and over instead of just spending a little time and dialing in a timing curve that is appropriate for the specific vehicle.

the people who sell the JB tunes, the people that develop them, and the people that want to justify their purchase of a JB tune.

Literally, thats it.

ps- your making me want to hop in my truck and drive a few miles for a bowl w Barbacoa, green salsa and the rest of the trimmings....yum

I take it other platforms control power by boost which makes more sense in the tuning aspect cause you are targeting a volume of air which more appropriately fits the engine plumping. We cannot do that here... unless we replace the ECU (i guess).

I have limited experience, based on my cars that I've messed with tuning, but most platforms its based on mods, boost, octane,and timing. From what I've seen, if you are running a large turbo that can easily push more air than you would want on pump gas, you would lower timing to keep from knocking while keeping the turbo in max efficiency range for the most power. But, our platform is different, and our small turbos can run close to max timing from what I've seen around 15psi. This still depends on mods and octane. Hopefully more testing is done, like with a Cobb tuner, that can show the same car with say 12 psi at 15 degrees timing vs 15 psi at 10 degrees timing.

My 300zx had a very primitive knock control system. The flash tune I used had conservative timing maps, but could still knock on bad conditions, and when it did, the ecu just went to safety boost (ie limp mode) until the car was turned off. The bmw has a very sophisticated way of adapting it over time, which may seem scary, but I'd also like to see what logic the dme goes through when lowering timing and adapting it back up.

How does BMW’s system differ? I can go and set my timing tables on my Subaru so that it also knocks on pump gas (not that I would.) The knock control system will circumvent the knock through feedback knock correction, fine learning knock correction and IAM adjustment. If I put race gas in, the system will then advance timing back up in response to the higher octane. Again, how is this different from what BMW is doing?

How does BMW’s system differ? I can go and set my timing tables on my Subaru so that it also knocks on pump gas (not that I would.) The knock control system will circumvent the knock through feedback knock correction, fine learning knock correction and IAM adjustment. If I put race gas in, the system will then advance timing back up in response to the higher octane. Again, how is this different from what BMW is doing?

we may have just witnessed the beginning of JB subi, a branch of JB bmw